Permit me to confess, I derive satisfaction from accuracy. Presenting a claim, substantiating it with evidence, and eliciting inquiries from others engenders a sense of gratification within me.
Moreover, I appreciate the act of listening. My comprehension has significantly evolved over years of advanced mentorship during my post-graduate studies, which has prompted me to reassess my perspectives through attentive listening. This intellectual journey remains ongoing.
Regrettably, recent events have left me disheartened. Although I grasp the actions undertaken by physical therapists, the rationale behind these actions eludes me. Daily interactions on Facebook mirror a recurring pattern: a. Person A introduces an article or topic. b. Person B dissents, citing disparate learning or clinical outcomes. c. Person A attempts to engage in discourse by querying Person B about their rationale. d. Person B, citing dissatisfaction with Person A’s tone, evades inquiries.
This perpetual exchange appears futile. It is imperative that we provide cogent, justifiable explanations for every aspect of our interactions with patients: every movement, exercise, intervention, utterance, and so forth. The essence is clear.
To effect improvement, it is incumbent upon us to: Listen attentively. Engage in introspection (both cognitively and metacognitively). Our reservoir of knowledge is vast. We must eschew emotive responses in professional discourse, as this tendency often distinguishes novices from seasoned debaters. Rather, we should adhere to the following protocol: Do you like the article? Read also about Exoskeletons in physiotherapy.
When confronted with dissenting views: Pause and contemplate the information presented. If responding… Propose an alternative hypothesis or assertion predicated on fewer assumptions. In previous dialogues, I have expounded upon Occam’s Razor, acknowledging Diane Jacobs and the community at SomaSimple for acquainting me with its precepts.
Occam’s Razor posits that among competing hypotheses, the simplest one should be favored. While more intricate solutions may ultimately prove valid, in the absence of certainty, simplicity reigns supreme.
Advance an alternative hypothesis or assertion more aligned with the topic under discussion. Though seemingly trivial, certain ideas are substantiated by a wealth of evidence, such as the safety of vaccinations. Additionally, contemplate the following:
Does my rebuttal (or their rebuttal) critique the idea or the individual? Ideas are subject to scrutiny; individuals are not. Is my proposition scientifically tenable? Have I fallen prey to any logical fallacies? What degree of vested interest do I hold in this concept?
You can read more about this topic on the Wikipedia page.
